Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 15 Сентября 2013 в 16:36, шпаргалка
Лексикология как наука. Предмет лексикологии и ее связь с другими разделами языкознания
Слово как основная единица языка. Отношения между словом и понятием
Проблема определения слова и его основные характеристики
Элементы семантической структуры слова. Полисемия в английском языке
Полисемия и омонимия. Проблема разграничения полисемии и омонимии
Антонимические отношения между словарными единицами. Некоторые общие и различительные черты синонимов и антонимов
Типы значения. Значение в синтагматике и парадигматике
Значение в сложных словах
Word meaning is not homogeneous but is made up of various components. These components are described as types of meaning. The three main types are:
The words “girls”, “winters”, “joys” have one common meaning - grammatical meaning of plurality. R.S. Ginsburg gives the following definition to grammatical meaning: Grammatical meaning is the recurrent identical sets of individual form of different words, such as in tense meaning (went, liked, will go), case meaning (a girl’s answer), aspect meaning (is going). Some linguists also distinguish part of speech meaning which presupposes that all member of a major class (nouns, adjectives and so on) share a distinguishing semantic component called part-of-speech meaning (e.g., nouns have the meaning of thingness: table, window). The grammatical aspect of part-of-speech meaning is conveyed by a set of forms (table - tables, table - table’s, etc.). E.g., a verb possesses sets of forms expressing tense meaning (work - worked), mood meaning (work - would work), aspect meaning (work - is working), person meaning (work - works).
Lexical meaning is a component which is identical in all forms of the word (e.g. go - goes - gone - going - went - would go). Though all these forms possess different grammatical meanings, in each of them we find the same semantic component denoting process of moving. This is the lexical component of the word. Lexical meaning is unchanged in all forms and distributions of the word. The interrelation between lexical and grammatical meaning varies in different parts of speech. In nouns, lexical meaning prevails and stands out very clearly, while it is vague in prepositions, conjunctions, or link-verbs. Both the lexical and the grammatical meanings are inseparable. They make up the word meaning and cannot exist without the other.
Lexico-grammatical meaning is the common denominator of all the meanings of words belonging to a lexico-grammatical class of words. It is the feature according to which they are grouped together. In fact, they are so-called generic terms. For material nouns, for example, the generic term will be “matter”; for collective nouns it will be “group”, for personal nouns - “person”, and so on.
It is more or less universally recognised that word-meaning can be perceived through intralinguistic relations that exist between words. Intralinguistic relations of words are basically of two main types:
Syntagmatic relations define the meaning the word possesses when it is used in combination with other words in the flow of speech. Paradigmatic relations are those that exist between individual lexical items which make up one of the subgroups of vocabulary items, e.g. sets of synonyms, lexico-semantic groups, etc. Paradigmatic relations define the word-meaning through its interrelation with other members of the subgroup in question. For example, the meaning of the verb to get can be fully understood only in comparison with other items of the synonymic set: get, obtain, receive, etc. Cf. He got a letter, he received a letter, he obtained a letter, etc. Comparing the sentences discussed above we may conclude that an item in a sentence can be usually substituted by one or more than one other items that have identical part-of-speech meaning and similar though not identical lexical meaning. The difference in the type of subgroups the members of which are substitutable in the flow of speech is usually described as the difference between closed and open sets of lexical items. The members of closed systems are strictly limited in number and no addition of new items is possible.
The sets in which the number of alternatives is practically infinite as they are continually being adapted to new requirements by the addition of new lexical items are described as open systems. Closed systems are traditionally considered to be the subject matter of grammar, open systems such as lexico-semantic fields, hyponymic, synonymic sets, etc.1 are studied by lexicology. From the discussion of the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations it follows that a full understanding of the semantic structure of any lexical item can be gained only from the study of a variety of contexts in which the word is used, i.e. from the study of the intralinguistic relations of words in the flow of speech. This is of greatest importance in connection with the problem of the synchronic approach to polysemy.
It will be recalled that in analysing the semantic structure of the polysemantic word table we observed that some meanings are representative of the word in isolation, i.e. they invariably occur to us when we hear the word or see it written on paper. Other meanings come to the fore only when the word is used in certain contexts. This is true of all polysemantic words. The adjective yellow, e.g., when used in isolation is understood to denote a certain colour, whereas other meanings of this word, e.g. ‘envious’, ‘suspicious’ or ‘sensational’, ‘corrupt’, are perceived only in certain contexts, e.g. ‘a yellow look’, ‘the yellow press’, etc. As can be seen from the examples discussed above we understand by the term context the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word. The context individualises the meanings, brings them out. It is in this sense that we say that meaning is determined by context.
The meaning or meanings representative of the semantic structure of the word and least dependent on context are usually described as free or denominative meanings. Thus we assume that the meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ is the denominative meaning of the word table, the meaning ‘construct, produce’ is the free or denominative meaning of the verb make. The meaning or meanings of polysemantic words observed only in certain contexts may be viewed as determined either by linguistic (or verbal) contexts or extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.
The two more or less universally recognised main types of linguistic contexts which serve to determine individual meanings of words are:
These types are differentiated depending on whether the lexical or the grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning. In lexical contexts of primary importance are the groups of lexical items combined with the polysemantic word under consideration. This can be illustrated by analysing different lexical contexts in which polysemantic words are used. The adjective heavy, e.g., in isolation is understood as meaning ‘of great weight, weighty’ (heavy load, heavy table, etc.). When combined with the lexical group of words denoting natural phenomena such as wind, storm, snow, etc., it means ’striking, falling with force, abundant’ as can be seen from the contexts, e.g. heavy rain, wind, snow, storm, etc. In combination with the words industry, arms, artillery and the like, heavy has the meaning ‘the larger kind of something’ as in heavy industry, heavy artillery, etc. It can be easily observed that the main factor in bringing out this or that individual meaning of the words is the lexical meaning of the words with which heavy is combined.
Some linguists go so far as to assert that word-meaning in general can be analysed through its collocability with other words. They hold the view that if we know all the possible collocations (or word-groups) into which a polysemantic word can enter, we know all its meanings. Thus, the meanings of the adjective heavy, for instance, may be analysed through its collocability with the words weight, safe, table; snow, wind, rain; industry, artillery, etc. In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb make, e.g. ‘to force, to enduce’, is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do something or in other terms this particular meaning occurs only if the verb make is followed by a noun and the infinitive of some other verb (to make smb. laugh, go, work, etc.). Another meaning of this verb ‘to become’, ‘to turn out to be’ is observed in the contexts of a different structure, i.e. make followed by an adjective and a noun (to make a good wife, a good teacher, etc.). Such meanings are sometimes described as grammatically (or structurally) bound meanings.
In a number of contexts, however, we find that both the lexical and the grammatical aspects should be taken into consideration. It is usual in modern linguistic science to use the terms pattern or struсture to denote grammatical contexts. It is argued that difference in the distribution of the word is indicative of the difference in meaning. Sameness of distributional pattern, however, does not imply sameness of meaning.
Dealing with verbal contexts we consider only linguistic factors: lexical groups of words, syntactic structure of the context and so on. There are cases, however, when the meaning of the word is ultimately determined not by these linguistic factors, but by the actual speech situation in which this word is used. The meanings of the noun ring, e.g. in to give somebody a ring, or of the verb get in I've got it are determined not only by the grammatical or lexical context, but much more so by the actual speech situation. The noun ring in such context may possess the meaning ‘a circlet of precious metal’ or ‘a call on the telephone’; the meaning of the verb to get in this linguistic context may be interpreted as ‘possess’ or ‘understand’ depending on the actual situation in which these words are used. It should be pointed out however that such cases, though possible, are not actually very numerous. The linguistic context is by far a more potent factor in determining word-meaning.
It is of interest to note that not only the denotational but also the connotational component of meaning may be affected by the context. Another type of classification almost universally used in practical classroom teaching is known as thematic grouping. Classification of vocabulary items into thematic groups is based on the co-occurrence of words in certain repeatedly used contexts. In linguistic contexts co-occurrence maу be observed on different levels. On the level of word-groups the word question, for instance, is often found in collocation with the verbs raise, put forward, discuss, etc., with the adjectives urgent, vital, disputable and so on. As a rule, thematic groups deal with contexts on the level of the sentence. Words in thematic groups are joined together by common contextual associations within the framework of the sentence and reflect the interlinking of things or events. Common contextual association of the words, e.g. tree — grow — green; journey — train — taxi — bags — ticket or sunshine — brightly — blue — sky, is due to the regular co-occurrence of these words in a number of sentences. Words making up a thematic group belong to different parts of speech and do not possess any common denominator of meaning.
It follows that the meaning of a compound is made up of the combined lexical meaning of the bases and the structural meaning of the pattern. The semantic centre of the compound is the lexical meaning of the second component modified and restricted by the meaning of the first. The semantic centres of compounds and the semantic relations embedded in the structural patterns refer compound words to certain lexico-semantic groups and semantic sets within them as, for example:
The lexical meanings of both components are closely fused together to create a new semantic unit with a new meaning which is not merely additive but dominates the individual meanings of the bases and is characterised by some additional semantic component not found in any of the bases. For example, a hand-bag is essentially ‘a bag, designed to be carried in the hand’, but it is also ‘a woman’s bag to keep money, papers, face-powder and the like’; a time-bomb is ‘a bomb designed to explode at some time’, but also ‘after being dropped or placed in position’. The bulk of compound words are monosemantic and motivated but motivation in compounds like in all derivatives varies in degree. There are compounds that are completely motivated like sky-blue, foot-pump, tea-taster. Motivation in compound words may be partial, but again the degree will vary. Compound words a hand-bag, a flower-bed, handcuffs, a castle-builder are all only partially motivated, but still the degree of transparency of their meanings is different: in a hand-bag it is the highest as it is essentially ‘a bag’, whereas handcuffs retain only a resemblance to cuffs and in fact are ‘metal rings placed round the wrists of a prisoner’; a flower-bed is neither ‘a piece of furniture’ nor ‘a base on which smth rests’ but a ‘garden plot where flowers grow’; a castle-builder is not a ‘builder’ as the second component suggests but ‘a day-dreamer, one who builds castles in the air’.
There are compounds that lack motivation altogether, i.e. the native speaker doesn't see any obvious connection between the word-meaning, the lexical meanings of the bases and the meaning of the pattern, consequently, he cannot deduce the lexical meaning, of the word, for example, words like eye-wash — ’something said or done to deceive a person’, fiddlesticks — ‘nonsense, rubbish’, an eye-servant — ‘a servant who attends to his duty only when watched’, a night-cap — ‘a drink taken before going to bed at night’ all lack motivation. Lack of motivation in compound words may be often due to the transferred meanings of bases or of the whole word as in a slow-coach — ‘a person who acts slowly’ (colloq.), a sweet-tooth — ‘one who likes sweet food and drink’ (colloq.). Such words often acquire a new connotational meaning (usually non-neutral) not proper to either of their components. Lack of motivation may be often due to unexpected semantic relations embedded in the compound.
Sometimes the motivated and the non-motivated meanings of the same word are so far apart that they are felt as two homonymous words, e.g. a night-cap: 1) ‘a cap worn in bed at night’ and 2) ‘a drink taken before going to bed at night’ (colloq.); eye-wash: 1) ‘a liquid for washing the eyes’ and 2) ’something said or done to deceive somebody’ (colloq.); an eye-opener: 1) ‘enlightening or surprising circumstance’ (colloq.) and 2) ‘a drink of liquor taken early in the day’ (U.S.)
Word-meaning is liable to change in the course of the historical development of language. Changes of lexical meaning may be illustrated by a diachronic semantic analysis of many commonly used English words. The word fond (OE. fond) used to mean ‘foolish’, ‘foolishly credulous’; glad (OE, glaed) had the meaning of ‘bright’, ’shining’ and so on.
The factors accounting for semantic changes may be roughly subdivided into two groups:
By extra-linguistic causes we mean various changes in the life of the speech community, changes in economic and social structure, changes in ideas, scientific concepts, way of life and other spheres of human activities as reflected in word meanings. Although objects, institutions, concepts, etc. change in the course of time in many cases the soundform of the words which denote them is retained but the meaning of the words is changed. The word car, e.g., ultimately goes back to Latin carrus which meant ‘a four-wheeled wagon’ (ME. carre) but now that other means of transport are used it denotes ‘a motor-car’, ‘a railway carriage’ (in the USA), ‘that portion of an airship, or balloon which is intended to carry personnel, cargo or equipment’.
Some changes of meaning are due to what may be described as purely linguistic causes, i.e. factors acting within the language system. The commonest form which this influence takes is the so-called ellipsis. In a phrase made up of two words one of these is omitted and its meaning is transferred to its partner. The verb to starve, e.g., in Old English (OE. steorfan) had the meaning ‘to die’ and was habitually used in collocation with the word hunger (ME. sterven of hunger). Already in the 16th century the verb itself acquired the meaning ‘to die of hunger’. Similar semantic changes may be observed in Modern English when the meaning of one word is transferred to another because they habitually occur together in speech.
Another linguistic cause is discrimination of synonyms which can be illustrated by the semantic development of a number of words. The word land, e.g., in Old English (OE. land) meant both ’solid part of earth’s surface’ and ‘the territory of a nation’. When in the Middle English period the word country (OFr. contree) was borrowed as its synonym, the meaning of the word land was somewhat altered and ‘the territory of a nation’ came to be denoted mainly by the borrowed word country.
Some semantic changes may be accounted for by the influence of a peculiar factor usually referred to as linguistic analogy. It was found out, e.g., that if one of the members of a synonymic set acquires a new meaning other members of this set change their meanings too. It was observed, e.g., that all English adverbs which acquired the meaning ‘rapidly’ (in a certain period of time — before 1300) always develop the meaning ‘immediately’, similarly verbs synonymous with catch, e.g. grasp, get, etc., by semantic extension acquired another meaning — ‘to understand’
Taking up similarity of meaning and contrasts of phonetic shape, we observe that every language has in its vocabulary a variety of words, kindred in meaning but distinct in morphemic composition, phonemic shape and usage, ensuring the expression of most delicate shades of thought, feeling and imagination. The more developed the language, the richer the diversity and therefore the greater the possibilities of lexical choice enhancing the effectiveness and precision of speech.
Thus, synonyms are words only similar but not identical in meaning. This definition is correct but vague. E. g. horse and animal are also semantically similar but not synonymous. The basis of a synonymic opposition is formed by the first of the denotational component. It will be remembered that the term opposition means the relationship of partial difference between two partially similar elements of a language. A common denotational component forms the basis of the opposition in synonymic group. All the other components can vary and thus form the distinctive features of the synonymic oppositions.
Synonyms can therefore be defined in terms of linguistics as two or more words of the same language, belonging to the same part of speech and possessing one or more identical or nearly identical denotational meanings, interchangeable, at least in some contexts without any considerable alteration in denotational meaning, but differing in morphemic composition, phonemic shape, shades of meaning, connotations, style, valency and idiomatic use. Additional characteristics of style, emotional colouring and valency peculiar to one of the elements in a synonymic group may be absent in one or all of the others.
To have something tangible to work upon it is convenient to compare some synonyms within their group, so as to make obvious the reasons for the definition. The verbs experience, undergo, sustain and suffer, for example, come together, because all four render the notion of experiencing something. The verb and the noun experience indicate actual living through something and coming to know it first-hand rather than from hearsay. Undergo applies chiefly to what someone or something bears or is subjected to, as in to undergo an operation, to undergo changes. Compare also the following example from L.P. Smith: The French language has undergone considerable and more recent changes since the date when the Normans brought it into England. In the above example the verb undergo can be replaced by its synonyms suffer or experience without any change of the sentence meaning. The difference is neutralised.
Synonyms, then, are interchangeable under certain conditions specific to each group.
A further illustration will be supplied by a group of synonymous nouns: hope, expectation, anticipation. They are considered to be synonymous, because they all three mean ‘having something in mind which is likely to happen’. They are, however, much less interchangeable than the previous group because of more strongly pronounced difference in shades of meaning.
Taking into consideration the corresponding series of synonymous verbs and verbal set expressions: hope, anticipate, expect, look forward to, we shall see that separate words may be compared to whole set expressions. Look forward to is also worthy of note, because it forms a definitely colloquial counterpart to the rest. It can easily be shown, on the evidence of examples, that each synonymic group comprises a dominant element. This synonymic dominant is the most general term of its kind potentially containing the specific features rendered by all the other members of the group, as, for instance, undergo and hope in the above.
The synonymic dominant should not be confused with a generic term or a hyperonym. A generic term is relative. It serves as the name for the notion of the genus as distinguished from the names of the species — hyponyms. For instance, animal is a generic term as compared to the specific names wolf, dog or mouse (which are called equonyms). Dog, in its turn, may serve as a generic term for different breeds such as bull-dog, collie, poodle, etc.
Synonyms possess one or more identical or nearly identical meanings. To realise the significance of this, one must bear in mind that the majority of frequent words are polysemantic, and that it is precisely the frequent words that have many synonyms. The result is that one and the same word may belong in its various meanings to several different synonymic groups.
A fresh metaphor — fresh : : original : : novel : : striking.
To begin a fresh paragraph — fresh : : another : : different : : new.
Fresh air — fresh : : pure : : invigorating.
A freshman — fresh : : inexperienced : : green : : raw.
To be fresh with sb — fresh : : impertinent : : rude.
Synonyms may also differ in emotional colouring which may be present in one element of the group and absent in all or some of the others. Lonely as compared with alone is emotional. Both words denote being apart from others, but lonely besides the general meaning implies longing for company, feeling sad because of the lack of sympathy and companionship. Alone does not necessarily suggest any sadness at being by oneself.